South Australian ‘soft’ voters inclined to change their government but not impressed with the alternative

File 20180311 30986 94tuaf.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Jay Weatherill was seen as the better performer during the campaign when compared with Steven Marshall.
Morgan Sette/AAP

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

An “old” government, an opposition leader many people find lacklustre, and a popular centrist player adept at exploiting discontent. That’s the confusing choice facing “soft” voters in next Saturday’s South Australian election.

It’s little wonder that observers are unwilling to predict the election’s outcome.

In focus group research last week, participants were divided over whether South Australia – which often sees itself as the poor relation among states – is headed in the right or wrong direction.

On the positive side they noted the technology industries, renewable energy, and defence contracts. But then there is the pain – the decline of manufacturing, lack of jobs, low wages, high cost of living, and many young people leaving the state.

Four groups of nine to ten “soft” voters – people still to decide how they will vote – were run on March 7-8, two each in Adelaide and Murray Bridge, a regional city of some 20,000 population. The work was done by Landscape Research for the University of Canberra’s Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis.

There was a mix of gender, age and socioeconomic backgrounds. In Adelaide voters were drawn mainly from the marginal Liberal seat of Hartley (where SA-Best leader Nick Xenophon is running) and Dunstan (also marginal Liberal, held by Opposition Leader Steven Marshall). Both seats are within federal cabinet minister Christopher Pyne’s seat of Sturt.

Murray Bridge is within the state seat of Hammond (safe Liberal); it is located in the federal Liberal seat of Barker, which saw a strong Nick Xenophon Team vote in the 2016 federal election.

Among the election issues, health – including the cost and teething problems of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital – was a prominent concern for these soft voters, especially older ones.

The plight of the Murray River and the management of the Murray Darling Basin resonated in Adelaide as well as obviously in the river city. For the regional voters, inadequate public transport servicing Murray Bridge (cost and availability) was important.

Read more:
Politics podcast: the ‘X factor’ in the South Australian election

Across all groups, a common catch-cry was that “the government should do more to keep young people here” in South Australia.

Premier Jay Weatherill was seen as the better performer during the campaign, when compared with Marshall.

Weatherill, premier since 2011, was perceived as the stronger leader of the two; he has to a degree escaped the blame for South Australia’s decline that is directed at the 16-year-old government.

“He speaks with more authority than Marshall,” said an older Adelaide voter, while an older participant in Murray Bridge thought “the current mob have given us a clearer idea of where they want to take the state than the Liberals”. But there was as well a strand of criticism from the older cohort – that Weatherill is “weak” and “insipid”.

Among the soft voters there was also a compelling sense of “change for change’s sake”, as one participant put it. “Labor has been in power long enough,” said a retiree; another wanted “new faces”.

Going against Weatherill is that, while he was seen as the better political performer, many of these soft voters had no great regard for him or his record in government. “Weatherill is just coasting along on what he thinks he has achieved and bullying tactics,” was the view of one Adelaide participant.

While many soft voters didn’t think Labor deserved re-election, they were hesitant about the Liberals under Marshall.

“If you look at Marshall, how can you ever call him a leader?” said an Adelaide real estate agent, while a retiree said: “He hasn’t imploded yet but that could happen any day given past experience with the Liberal Party”.

Xenophon was regarded widely as standing up for South Australia – several of these voters could spontaneously bring to mind examples of this.

He was seen to have run a “positive” campaign, in contrast to the major parties – this adds to his appeal when soft voters are disappointed with the sniping of the big parties, with which they are deeply disillusioned anyway. People judged the major parties were worried about Xenophon by the fact they were attacking him. “Both parties are seeing him as a real threat and are putting the boot in,” said one participant.

Xenophon, who started his political career as an anti-pokies campaigner, has adopted a pragmatic approach on the issue at this election. Some of these voters regarded this as selling out and becoming “just like the rest”, but for others it was a sign he understood “the need for compromise”.

The Hotels Association campaign against Xenophon has penetrated people’s awareness but also to a degree appears to have backfired, with some of these voters taking the view this was a “big lobby with deep pockets” targeting him for their own nefarious ends.

Soft voters, reacting against the major parties, are attracted to the idea of Xenophon’s party having the balance of power as an antidote to their disillusionment. For those leaning toward voting for SA-Best, it represented a genuine alternative to the majors.

On the other hand, there was some disappointment with Xenophon. His hokey election advertising had not impressed the critics, and they viewed him as superficial. “He’s been exposed when he’s tried to be serious,” said one; another said: “People are beginning to understand Nick is just a showman”.

In Adelaide, SA-Best was seen largely as something of a one-man show, with not much in the way of policies, its attraction being as a vehicle for a protest vote rather than for what it represents in positive terms.

There was also the issue that while Xenophon was a household name, outside the seat of Hartley his supporters would be voting for candidates who were often unknown quantities. As a young Adelaide voter put it, voting for SA-Best was “an awesome gamble”.

In Murray Bridge, a relatively small community, SA-Best has fielded a candidate described in the discussion as a “strong young woman” and the competition appears fierce, with Liberal incumbent Adrian Pederick facing a serious threat.

Participants acknowledged upsides and downsides in the prospect that SA-Best might hold the balance of power. An older Murray Bridge voter said it would “take the arrogance out of decision-making”. But another feared it would mean “South Australia will be stuck in quicksand, no movement, mired”.

Unlike quantitative polling, focus group research has no statistical validity. But for interest, here is the vote-leaning breakdown of these soft voters, in the penultimate week of the campaign.

Of 38 participants in total, eight remained firmly undecided. Of those who could say to which party they were leaning, the Liberals and SA-Best were neck and neck on 11 and 12 respectively, with five leaning to Labor and two thinking of voting for an independent or party other than these three. The Liberals fare more strongly in Adelaide seats, while SA-Best is the frontrunner in Hammond.

The ConversationNotwithstanding their own leanings there was a feeling among some soft voters that Labor might win “by default” because Xenophon would split the Liberal vote and “people will forget the crap”.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.


Newspoll round-up: Labor leading in Victoria and tied in New South Wales; populists dominate in Italy

File 20180308 30979 1rx6p2w.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Polls indicate a swing back in favour of the Andrews government in the lead-up to the November state election.
AAP/Joe Castro

Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

The Victorian election will be held on November 24, and the New South Wales election in March next year. Newspolls have been conducted in these states in February and early March from samples of 1,268 in Victoria and 1,526 in New South Wales. Labor led by 52-48 in Victoria, and was tied 50-50 in New South Wales, a one-point gain for Labor since February to March 2017.

In Victoria, primary votes were 39% Coalition, 37% Labor, 11% Greens and 6% One Nation. The last Victorian Newspoll was conducted in 2016, so it is not useful for comparison. However, Galaxy polling had Labor slumping to a 53-47 deficit in June 2017, before recovering to a 50-50 tie in December, so this Newspoll suggests a continuing trend to Labor.

Read more:
Labor wins a majority in Queensland as polling in Victoria shows a tie

Premier Daniel Andrews’ ratings were 46% satisfied, 41% dissatisfied. Opposition Leader Matthew Guy’s ratings were 36% satisfied, 37% dissatisfied. Andrews led Guy 41-30 as better premier.

Labor led the Liberals 44-34 on party best to maintain energy supply and keep power prices lower, while the Liberals led 42-37 on law and order. 65% thought the Andrews government should be doing more to reduce gang violence, while just 25% thought it was doing enough.

This poll will be a major disappointment for right-wing media that have campaigned strongly against Labor on the gang violence issue. Despite this campaign, the Liberals only have a five-point lead over Labor on law and order, a conservative-leaning issue. Other issues are likely to be helping Labor.

In New South Wales, primary votes were 38% Coalition (down two), 34% Labor (steady), 11% Greens (up one) and 8% One Nation (steady). This Newspoll is the first since early 2008 that has not had a Coalition lead after preferences.

Premier Gladys Berejiklian’s ratings were 45% satisfied (up one since February to March 2017), 35% dissatisfied (up 14). Opposition Leader Luke Foley’s ratings were 37% satisfied (up five), 35% dissatisfied (down one). Berejiklian led Foley 43-25 as better premier (43-21 previously).

New South Wales is the only state that now uses optional preferential voting for single-member electorates. All other state and national elections use compulsory preferential voting (Queensland changed to compulsory preferential during the last parliamentary term).

Populists dominate Italian election

At the Italian election on March 4, the centre-right coalition won 37.0% of the vote, the populist left Five Star Movement won 32.7% and the centre-left coalition 22.9%. Within the right coalition, the anti-immigrant populist League won 17.4%, while former PM Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia had just 14.0%.

37% of both chambers of the Italian Parliament were elected by “first past the post”, while the remainder used proportional representation. The right coalition’s narrow lead over the Five Star Movement did not allow them to win a large majority of the first past the post seats, and they were well short of an overall majority.

42-43% of both chambers went to the right coalition, 36% to the Five Star Movement and 18-19% to the left coalition. A governing coalition could be formed between Five Star and the Democratic Party, the main component of the left coalition. It is also possible that the League and Five Star could combine, or a new election may be needed.

Read more:
Will elections in 2018 see 2017’s left-wing revival continue?

More than five months after election, German government formed

On March 4, the Social Democrats’ members voted by 66-34 to join Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats in a grand coalition – the same right/left coalition that had governed Germany from 2013-17.

At the September 2017 election, the Social Democrats’ vote had fallen to 20.5% – its lowest in a free election since 1932. Since the election, their vote has fallen to about 17%. It is difficult for a centre-left party in coalition with conservatives to differentiate itself.

Read more:
NZ First to hold balance of power after election; far-right AfD wins 12.6% in Germany

By the next German election, due in 2021, it would be no surprise if the Social Democrats had fallen into single figures, and been overtaken by one or both of the more left-wing parties – the Greens and the Left.

Centre-left parties faltering in Europe, but UK Labour is performing much better

The German and Italian elections are examples of a Europe-wide problem for centre-left parties. The exception appears to be the UK, where Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour won 40% at the June 2017 election, and is now neck-and-neck with the Conservatives, with both parties in the 40’s.

I believe the most important cause of this disparity is that UK Labour has adopted many populist left policies, while European centre-left parties resist populist policies.

Putin set for crushing victory at March 18 Russian election

The ConversationIncumbent Russian President Vladimir Putin is polling over 60%, and will win the first round of the Russian Presidential election on March 18 with an outright majority, avoiding a runoff. The other candidates all have under 10% support.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Xenophon’s SA-BEST slumps in a South Australian Newspoll, while Turnbull’s better PM lead narrows

File 20180305 65511 19ep8ib.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Although SA-BEST is averaging 27% in seats it is contesting, the major parties are less vulnerable to losing seats to SA-BEST than it may appear from primary votes.
AAP/David Mariuz

Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

The South Australian election will be held on March 17. A Newspoll, conducted in the three days from February 27 to March 1 from a sample of 1,078, gave the Liberals 32% of the primary vote (up three since the October to December Newspoll), Labor 30% (up three), SA-BEST 21% (down 11), the Greens 7% (up one) and the Australian Conservatives 6%. No two-party figure was calculated.

About half of SA-BEST’s drop is because it is contesting 36 of the 47 lower house seats, and Newspoll did not offer SA-BEST as an option in the seats it is not contesting. In the seats SA-BEST is contesting, it averaged 27%.

Read more:
With Feeney gone, Greens sniff a chance in Batman, and has Xenophon’s bubble burst in South Australia?

On the three-way better premier question, 29% supported Nick Xenophon (down 17), 28% incumbent Jay Weatherill (up six) and 24% Opposition Leader Steven Marshall (up five). Weatherill led Marshall 38-31 head-to-head (37-32 previously).

Although SA-BEST and Xenophon’s support has slumped, neither of the two major party leaders is at all popular. Weatherill’s net approval is -21, down two points, and Marshall’s net approval is -26, down three points.

The Liberals led Labor 42-38 on best party for the South Australian economy, and led Labor 37-36 on best to maintain the energy supply and keep power prices lower. SA-BEST voters favoured the Liberals 37-33 on the economy and Labor 35-27 on energy.

Although SA-BEST is averaging 27% in seats it is contesting, the major parties are less vulnerable to losing seats to SA-BEST than it may appear from primary votes. Most Greens will preference Labor higher than SA-BEST, and most Conservatives will preference the Liberals higher.

Labor’s biggest problem in South Australia is that it has been in government since 2002. Old governments cannot blame problems on their predecessors, and there is an “It’s Time” factor.

14-to-16-year-old Labor governments in Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania were smashed between 2011 and 2014, so Labor in South Australia is doing well to be competitive. Picking fights with the unpopular federal Coalition government probably explains Labor’s competitiveness.

Only once in the four elections since 2002 South Australian Labor won has the party received a majority of the two party vote (in 2006). At the 2014 election, despite losing the two-party vote 53.0-47.0, Labor won 23 of the 47 seats, and formed government with an independent’s support.

Unlike other Australian electoral commissions, the South Australian commission is required to create electorally fair boundaries. The 2018 boundaries were drawn so that, based on the last election’s results, a party that won a majority of the two-party vote should win a majority of the seats, ignoring independents.

The result of this requirement is that boundaries have been changed to favour the Liberals. According to the ABC’s Antony Green, the new boundaries notionally give the Liberals 27 seats out of 47, to Labor’s 20. Including independents, the Liberals have 24 seats, Labor has 19 and independents four. Ignoring independents, Labor needs a 3.1-point uniform swing to gain four seats from the Liberals and a majority.

The South Australian upper house has 22 members, with half up for election every four years. Statewide proportional representation is used to elect the upper house, with a similar system to the Senate. The South Australian parliament abolished group voting tickets last year.

The new system has optional preferential voting above the line; a single “1” vote above the line will expire within the chosen party, and will not be passed on as preferences to another party. Voters can direct preferences to other parties by marking “2”, “3”, and so on, above the line.

With 11 members to be elected, a quota is one-twelfth of the vote, or 8.3%. Overall, the upper house has eight Liberals, eight Labor, two Greens, two Conservatives, one Dignity and one Advance SA (formerly SA-BEST). At this election, the members up for election are four Liberals, four Labor, one Green, one Conservative and one Dignity.

Federal Newspoll: 53-47 to Labor

This week’s Newspoll, conducted March 1-4 from a sample of 1,660, gave federal Labor a 53-47 lead, unchanged on last fortnight. Primary votes were 38% Labor (up one), 37% Coalition (up one), 9% Greens (down one) and 7% One Nation (down one).

This is Malcolm Turnbull’s 28th successive Newspoll loss, just two short of Tony Abbott. If Newspoll sticks to its schedule, Turnbull will hit his 30th loss in April, but parliament will not be sitting until the May budget.

Despite the argument about Bill Shorten and Labor’s stance on the Adani coal mine, Labor gained a point at the expense of the Greens on primary votes. However, the overall Labor/Greens primary is still stuck at 47%, where it has been since August.

Turnbull’s ratings appear to have suffered further from the Barnaby Joyce and Michaelia Cash controversies. 32% were satisfied with Turnbull (down two), and 57% were dissatified (up three), for a net approval of -25. Shorten’s net approval was down three points to -23. Turnbull’s lead as better PM narrowed from 40-33 to 37-35, his equal lowest better PM lead.

In the first Newspoll of the year, in early February, Turnbull was at a net -13 approval, Shorten at a net -18, and Turnbull led Shorten by an emphatic 45-31 as better PM. That Newspoll came after a controversy-free summer holiday period. Since then, Turnbull has lost 12 points of net approval, Shorten has lost five, and Turnbull’s better PM lead has narrowed from 14 points to two.

Read more:
Turnbull and the Coalition begin the year on a positive polling note – but it’s still all about the economy

Essential 53-47 to Labor

In last week’s Essential, conducted February 22-25 from a sample of 1,028, Labor led by 53-47, a one-point gain for the Coalition. Primary votes were 35% Coalition (down one), 35% Labor (down two), 10% Greens (steady) and 8% One Nation (up two).

By 50-32, voters supported a ban on sex between ministers and their staff. Voters also supported a ban on politicians having extra-marital sex 44-36, and a ban on sex between managers and their staff in the workplace 48-35. However, voters were opposed to a ban on sex between workmates 55-22.

A total of 60% thought Barnaby Joyce should resign, with 26% saying he should remain in parliament, and 34% saying he should leave parliament. Only 19% thought he should remain deputy PM.

By 44-41, voters approved of the media reporting on politicians’ private affairs.

Only 23% thought Joyce’s sexual relationship with his staffer was a major concern. On the other hand, 60% thought alleged excessive use of travel entitlements a major concern, and 50% thought finding the staff member work in another minister’s office a major concern.

Essential asked whether four Indigenous-related issues, the republic and changing Australia Day were a high priority. Just 11% thought changing the date of Australia Day was a high priority, and 21% becoming a republic. All the Indigenous-related issues scored higher.

The ConversationBy 48-32, voters would support abolishing private health insurance subsidies, and using this money to include dental care within Medicare.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Hodgman rides Tasmanians’ disdain for minority government to a second term in office

File 20180303 65541 vtrnwv.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
The Tasmanian election result was an emphatic win for Will Hodgman, but he lost a fair bit of skin along the way.
AAP/Julian Smith

Richard Eccleston, University of Tasmania

In an era of single-term governments and growing electoral volatility in Australia, the return of Will Hodgman’s Liberal government at Saturday’s Tasmanian election with more than 50% of the primary vote is significant – and will have national implications.

The Turnbull government will take comfort from a result that demonstrates voters – even in left-leaning Tasmania – are prepared to re-elect a competent Liberal government that has delivered strong economic and employment growth.

It was a strong result for the Liberals. However, the outcome was shaped as much by Tasmania’s distinctive political practices and local issues as it was by national trends.

Pokies, housing, hospitals, and – at the 11th hour – watering down gun laws might have been the specific issues that dominated the campaign, but the decisive factor was Tasmanians’ enduring apprehension about minority government.

The legacies of Labor-Green minority government of the early 1990s and between 2010 and 2014 cast a long shadow during the 2018 campaign. Both periods are associated with economic decline, rising unemployment, and budget cuts.

While there is little evidence to suggest minority government has been a cause of poor economic outcomes in Tasmania – it is more that these governments were unlucky and found themselves in charge after national downturns – the fact remains that Tasmanians have a strong preference for majority government.

Given this history, undecided Tasmanian voters tend to back the major party that’s most likely to form majority government. This was evident in both 2006 and 2014, and was always going to be a feature of the 2018 campaign given memories of the 2012-13 recession in Tasmania are still fresh in voters’ minds. And the Liberal government, which was elected in 2014, has delivered strong economic growth.

It is this bandwagon effect that helps explain why support for the government increased by ten points over the course of the campaign, rather than going to minor parties – as has been the case elsewhere.

Read more:
Liberals romp to emphatic victory in Tasmanian election

What now for the Liberals?

The final result was an emphatic win for Hodgman. But it is also fair to say he lost a bit of skin along the way, due to the Liberals’ big-budget, brutally effective advertising campaign seeming to have been funded by gaming interests.

The reality is that Tasmania remains deeply divided on pokies and the means the gaming industry uses to protect its interests.

Tasmanians voted for political and economic stability on Saturday, but an overwhelming majority support Labor’s policy of phasing pokies out of pubs and clubs over a five-year period.

Read more:
Removing pokies from Tasmania’s clubs and pubs would help gamblers without hurting the economy

The pokies debate is far from over. Hodgman must commit to open and transparent government, and subject his gaming policies to full parliamentary scrutiny in an attempt to regain the electorate’s trust. Opposition parties also have a role to play, and must be willing to compromise to find some middle ground.

The election’s losers

The result wasn’t a disaster for Labor.

Rebecca White, after securing the Labor leadership only a year ago, performed strongly during the campaign and has consolidated her credentials as a future premier. That she will be leading a stronger opposition bolstered by handful of up-and-coming new MPs also bodes well for Labor’s future.

The real losers in the election were the Greens and Jacqui Lambie.

In contrast to their success in inner-Melbourne and Sydney, the Greens have been struggling in Tasmania in recent years. The explanation for their decline in their former heartland can be attributed to the legacies of the last government, the absence of a high-profile local environmental issue, and that Labor, under White, has championed many of their core progressive causes.

Lambie and her party could have been the wildcard of this election, but she has had a tough summer and will have to fight hard to salvage her political career. Had Lambie herself run as a candidate on Saturday, it’s likely she would have been elected – and could have held the balance of power in the lower house.

Strangely, given that personalities and name recognition are so important in Tasmanian elections, she ran a ticket of grassroots candidates under her Jacqui Lambie Network banner that, as expected, failed to secure any serious support.

Lessons for the future

As the dust settles, we can draw a few conclusions from the Tasmanian election result.

Above all else, Tasmanians are a pragmatic bunch and are prepared to reward a government that delivers political stability and good economic outcomes.

The campaign also highlighted the power of sectional interests – be they mining, gaming or other actors – in Australian politics. The collective health of our democracy depends on curbing the influence of these groups at both the state and federal level.

The ConversationGiven the distinctive dynamics of Tasmanian politics, not too much can be read into the swing away from minor and protest parties and back to the majors. Perhaps the real test of the national political mood will come in South Australia on Saturday week.

Richard Eccleston, Professor of Political Science; Director, Institute for the Study of Social Change, University of Tasmania

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Liberals romp to emphatic victory in Tasmanian election

File 20180303 65511 1m13lmn.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
The Hodgman government has been returned for a second term.
AAP/Julian Smith

Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

With 84% of votes counted at Saturday’s Tasmanian election, the ABC is calling 13 of the 25 seats (a majority) for the Liberals, eight for Labor, and one Green, with three in doubt.

Labor is very likely to win the final seat in Braddon, while the final seat in Bass is a Labor/Greens contest, and the final seat in Franklin is a Liberal/Greens contest.

Vote shares were 50.5% Liberals (down just 0.8% since the 2014 landslide), 32.8% Labor (up 5.4%), 10.0% Greens (down 3.8%), and 3.2% Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) – which only contested three of the five electorates.

Tasmania uses the Hare Clark system for its lower house elections, with five five-member electorates. A quota is one-sixth of the vote, or 16.7%. For a vote to be formal, at least five candidates must be numbered. Unlike the federal Senate, there is no above-the-line party ticket box.

I will run through each electorate’s results from easiest to most complicated.

In Denison, Labor won 2.55 quotas, the Liberals 2.26, and the Greens 1.03. This is a clear two Labor, two Liberals, one Green result, unchanged from 2014.

In Lyons, the Liberals won 3.05 quotas, Labor 1.99, the Greens 0.38, and the JLN 0.32. This is a clear three Liberals, two Labor result, unchanged from 2014.

In Braddon, the Liberals won 3.38 quotas, Labor 1.64, the JLN 0.36, ungrouped candidates 0.26, and the Greens 0.20. Labor is well ahead of everyone else in the race for the last seat, and will benefit from Greens preferences. This will be a Labor gain from the Liberals.

In Bass, the Liberals won 3.53 quotas, Labor 1.59, the Greens 0.54, and the JLN 0.28. Labor is more exposed to within-ticket leakage than the Greens, but is likely to be helped by JLN preferences that do not exhaust.

There will be a crunch point where one candidate from the Liberals, Greens and Labor is left. If the Liberals are third at that point, their preferences probably exhaust. If either Labor or the Greens are third, their preferences should benefit the other left-wing candidate.

In Franklin, the Liberals won 2.91 quotas, Labor 2.07, the Greens 0.86, and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers 0.16. Premier Will Hodgman won 2.30 quotas, and some of his surplus will leak out of the Liberal ticket. However, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers ran just one candidate, so four further preferences were required for formal votes. These preferences are likely to assist the Liberals against the Greens.

Labor has gained a seat in Franklin at the expense of the loser of the Liberals/Greens contest.

I believe preferences will start to be distributed following the last day for receipt of postal votes, on March 13.

Why this result occurred

In December, an EMRS poll had the Liberals and Labor tied at 34%, the Greens on 17%, and the JLN on 8%. In the three months since that poll was taken, the Liberals went from a losing position to an emphatic victory – a bitterly disappointing outcome for Labor and the Greens.

EMRS does not usually provide favourable ratings for the leaders, but it did in its December poll. It found Labor leader Rebecca White at a net +40, and Hodgman at a net +13 rating.

There have been two recent state elections with first-term Coalition governments that won landslides at the preceding election, ending at least 14 years of continuous Labor government.

  • At the Queensland 2015 election, the Liberal National Party under Campbell Newman was defeated; Newman was very unpopular.

  • At the New South Wales 2015 election, the Coalition was comfortably re-elected; Premier Mike Baird was popular at the time.

Tasmania has now followed the NSW example. Labor was crushed in 2014 after 16 consecutive years in power, and the Liberals easily won Saturday’s election.

In Tasmania, White’s initial popularity may have inflated Labor’s position in the polls. However, people generally do not vote a certain way because they like the opposition leader; the premier’s performance is far more important. But popular opposition leaders can inflate their party’s vote until close to an election.

At the 2017 Western Australian election, which Labor won in a landslide, Opposition Leader Mark McGowan was popular, but Premier Colin Barnett was very unpopular. The perception of Barnett was probably far more important than that of McGowan.

The Tasmanian Liberals also benefited from anti-Greens sentiment. In the final week, ReachTEL gave the Liberals a 46-31 lead over Labor, and EMRS gave them a 46-34 lead. These polls may have pushed undecided voters into voting Liberal to ensure a majority government, and so they understated the Liberal vote.

It appears that, four years after one term of Labor/Greens minority government, Tasmanians do not want to return to the Greens holding the balance of power. In 2006, Labor easily won an election that was expected to be close because of the Greens factor.

Read more:
Liberals likely to win Tasmanian election, while federal Labor’s poll lead widens

Tasmanian analyst Kevin Bonham has written about why Labor’s anti-pokies policy was not a major vote winner.

On Friday, the last day of campaigning, the Liberals were embarrassed when it was revealed they had a policy to relax gun laws that had been hidden from the public. There have been other recent cases where issues that would be expected to have a last-minute impact on an election have fizzled. If the Liberals defeat the Greens on Shooters, Fishers and Farmers preferences in Franklin, the net impact will be positive for the Liberals.

The ConversationAt the 2016 federal election, Tasmania was easily Labor’s best state. On Saturday, Labor had its worst result in a state election since the 2014 Tasmanian election – federal and state results do not necessarily agree. A Liberal state government will probably help federal Labor retain its four Tasmanian federal seats.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

As Tasmania looks likely to have minority government, the Greens must decide how to play their hand

File 20180222 65236 2h6v3v.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Tasmanians Greens leader Cassy O’Connor (centre) on the hustings.
AAP/Rob Blakers

Narelle Miragliotta, Monash University

According to Tasmanian Greens leader Cassy O’Connor, “minority government is government for grown-ups”, whereas “majority government is government for vested interests, corruption and corporate deals”.

The Greens’ pitch to voters at Saturday’s Tasmanian state election is not being couched in policy terms alone. It is also based on a vision of a more desirable governing context for Tasmania. But is minority government good for the Greens?

The likelihood of minority government

There is a high probability that the Greens will get their wish and a minority government will be returned at this election.

Tasmania elects its lower house using a form of proportional representation known as the Hare-Clark system, where parties are awarded seats roughly in accordance with their levels of support within the electorate. Unless a party can win an overall majority of votes, it will not attain the necessary majority of seats to form a government in its own right.

In recent decades, the two major parties have struggled to secure governing majorities. In the eight Tasmanian elections since 1989, majority governments have been elected on only five occasions.

Read more:
Tasmanian election likely to be close, while Labor continues to lead federally

There is general agreement among commentators that a majority government at this election is far from certain. The Liberal Party attained 51.22% of the vote in 2014, and lead Labor in most polls. However, according to analysis by Ben Raue, the Liberals polled above 40% in just one of five polls held in the last year. If these figures are translated into actual votes, minority government is inevitable.

One might think that the possibility of minority government would render the major parties open to working with the Greens to form government. Yet the incumbent premier, Will Hodgman, has already declared that the Liberals “will govern alone or not at all”.

Likewise, Labor leader Rebecca White has also confirmed that her party “will not govern in minority”.

Much of this talk should be taken seriously but not literally. The major parties will be under pressure to negotiate an agreement of some description in the likely event of a hung parliament.

Any party that seeks to govern without the support of opposition forces will be perpetually at risk of defeat on the floor of the lower house. This reality is likely to weaken the resolve of even the most stubborn party leader – even more so once Governor Kate Warner makes the necessary entreaties.

However, it is not certain that the Greens will be the only parliamentary grouping in the mix to form a minority government. The most recent polling data (based on a MediaReach internal poll commissioned by the Liberal Party) has the Greens’ statewide primary vote at under 13%, which may not prove sufficient to secure the all-important “hinge seat” in each of the five multi-member electorates.

One of the particular challenges the Greens are confronting in 2018 is Labor’s capacity to outmanoeuvre them. As psephologist Kevin Bonham has observed, the Greens are being squeezed by the appeal of Labor’s “left-wing leader”.

Labor has also stolen the Greens’ thunder on the pokies issue, and its energy policy – complete with 120% renewable energy target – is likely to find favour with environmentally concerned voters.

Adding to the uncertainty is the prospect – albeit faint given recent polling – of the Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) electing one, possibly two candidates. The JLN might make more attractive legislative partners for the major parties than the Greens.

Is minority government good for the Greens?

There is a deeper question that the Greens must ask: whether it is prudent for them to enter into any kind of formal arrangement with either major party.

There are advantages in the short term, such as policy concessions and even the possibility of executive office. But the longer-term consequences are far less clear.

Read more:
Tasmania the first test in an election-laden year

The Tasmanian Greens suffered swings against them following the three previous occasions that they entered into some form of agreement to support a minority government: -3.9% in 1992, -2.1% in 1996, and -7.8% in 2014.

Though there were unique circumstances surrounding each of these agreements, it is unclear if the benefits outweigh the costs for the Greens. One international study concluded that participation in government “is not necessarily bad for Green parties”, which falls well short of a ringing endorsement.

If, following this election, the Greens are needed to form a stable government, then the party will have to think strategically about the terms on which it does so. Is participation in executive office a higher prize than consistency of electoral performance?

The ConversationIf the Greens value the former, then securing a formal agreement is the best way forward. But if they value the latter, then a “confidence-and-supply agreement” is their best option. This would allow the Greens to demand additional parliamentary resources and to shape the fate of legislation, without having to shoulder responsibility for government failures at a critical time in the party’s development.

Narelle Miragliotta, Senior Lecturer in Australian Politics, Monash University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Liberals likely to win Tasmanian election, while federal Labor’s poll lead widens

File 20180225 108122 15yx1mg.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
On the stated figures, the Will Hodgman-led Tasmanian Liberals are most likely to win 13 or 14 seats out of 25.
AAP/Rob Blakers

Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

The Tasmanian election will be held on Saturday. A ReachTEL poll, conducted for The Mercury on February 22 from a large sample of more than 3,100, gave the Liberals 46.4% of the vote, Labor 31.1%, the Greens 12.1%, the Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) 5.2%, others 2.0%, and 3.3% were undecided.

When undecideds are excluded, the Liberals have 48.0%, Labor 32.2%, the Greens 12.5%, and JLN 5.4%.

Tasmania uses the Hare-Clark system, with five five-member electorates. A quota is one-sixth of the vote, or 16.7%. Sample sizes for each electorate in ReachTEL were 620-650. The Liberals had well over 50% in Bass and Braddon, and 49.6% in Lyons, implying they would win three of the five seats in each.

Read more:
Tasmanian election likely to be close, while Labor continues to lead federally

In Franklin, the Liberals had 42.6%, easily enough for two seats. In Denison, the Liberals had 33.8%, just enough for two seats.

On the stated figures, the most likely overall seat outcome is 13 or 14 Liberals out of 25, eight-to-ten Labor, and two or three Greens. So, the Liberals should win a majority.

Like other Tasmanian polls, ReachTEL has in the past skewed to the Greens and against Labor. At the last two federal elections, ReachTEL skewed to the Liberals in Tasmania, though it skewed against the Liberals at the 2014 state election.

Adjusting for ReachTEL’s skew, Tasmanian analyst Kevin Bonham thinks the most likely outcome is 13 Liberals, ten Labor, and two Greens. The next two most likely outcomes are 13 Liberals, 11 Labor, one Green; and 12 Liberals, 11 Labor, two Greens.

I do not think opposition to Labor’s anti-pokies policy caused the swing to the Liberals during the campaign. The most important factor was probably that many Tasmanians detest the Greens, and will vote for the major party most likely to win a majority. In 2006, Labor easily won an election that had appeared likely to result in a hung parliament.

The Greens’ vote of 12.5% in this poll is below the 13.7% they won at the 2014 election, and it could be lower given ReachTEL’s pro-Greens skew. It is likely the Greens are doing badly because Labor, under Rebecca White’s leadership, has become more left-wing, so the Greens are having trouble differentiating themselves from Labor.

Incumbent Will Hodgman led White by 51.8-48.2 on ReachTEL’s forced choice better premier question. Labor’s pokies policy was supported against the Liberals’ policy by a 57-43 margin.

ReachTEL 54-46 to federal Labor

A Sky News ReachTEL, conducted February 22 – the day before Barnaby Joyce resigned – had federal Labor leading by 54-46, a two-point gain for Labor since late January. Primary votes were 37% Labor (up one), 33% Coalition (down one), 11% Greens (up one), and 7% One Nation (down one). The remaining 12% probably included some undecided voters.

ReachTEL is using respondent-allocated preferences, which have been better for the Coalition than previous election preferences, as One Nation preferences are flowing to the Coalition at a greater rate than the 50-50 flow at the 2016 election. By last election preferences, Bonham calculates this poll was about 55.5-44.5 to Labor. This makes it one of the worst polls for the Coalition this term.

Despite the blowout in the Labor margin, Malcolm Turnbull continued to lead Bill Shorten by 53-47 in ReachTEL’s forced choice better prime minister question (54-46 in January). Although the Joyce affair appears to have damaged the Coalition, Turnbull is not being blamed.

Last week’s Newspoll, conducted February 15-18 from a sample of 1,630, gave Labor a 53-47 lead, a one-point gain for Labor. Primary votes were 37% Labor (steady), 36% Coalition (down two), 10% Greens (steady), and 8% One Nation (up three). This was Turnbull’s 27th successive Newspoll loss, three short of Tony Abbott.

The overall Labor/Green vote in this Newspoll was 47%; the left vote has been stuck at 47% in Newspoll since August. Despite the Joyce affair, the overall Coalition/One Nation vote was up one point to 44%.

Turnbull’s ratings were 34% satisfied, 54% dissatisfied (37-50 previously). Shorten’s ratings were the same as Turnbull’s, and Turnbull led Shorten 40-33 as better prime minister (45-31 previously).

A total of 65% thought Joyce should resign as deputy prime minister, while only 23% thought he should stay. By 64-25, voters supported a ban on politicians having sexual relations with their staff. By 57-32, voters supported Shorten’s policy to give Indigenous people a voice to federal parliament.

As long as Republicans hold Congress, no chance of real US gun control

After the recent Florida high school gun massacre, there has been a renewed push for US gun control. However, as I wrote following the Las Vegas massacre in October, meaningful gun control will not happen under Donald Trump and the current Republican-controlled Congress.

Read more:
No chance of US gun control despite Las Vegas massacre; NZ left gains two seats after special votes

The Florida state legislature, which Republicans control 76-40, defeated a motion to debate a ban on assault weapons by 71-36, even as students from the affected school looked on. Instead, it passed a motion declaring pornography a public health risk.

Trump’s ratings are currently 39.1% approve, 55.6% disapprove, in the FiveThirtyEight poll aggregate. Before the gun massacre, Trump’s approval had risen to 41.5% owing to perceptions of an improving US economy; for several weeks, Trump’s approval was at least 40%.

Democrats lead by 47.0-38.8 in the race for Congress. Before the massacre, the Democrats’ lead had fallen to 6.4 points. All 435 US House of Representatives seats will be up for election in November, and also one-third of the 100 senators. Democrats probably need a mid-to-high single-digit popular vote margin to win control of the House of Representatives.

Read more:
Strong US economy boosts Trump’s ratings, as Democrats shut down government for three days

Italian election: March 4

The Italian election will be held on March 4. 37% of both chambers of the Italian parliament will be elected by first past the post, and the remainder by proportional representation.

Italy imposes a blackout on polling during the final two weeks of election campaigns. The last polls were published on or before February 16.

In the final pre-blackout polls, the centre-right coalition was in the high 30s, with the centre-left coalition and the populist left Five Star Movement trailing with about 27% each. A left-wing breakaway from the centre-left had about 6%.

Even though the overall left vote is about 60%, the right could win a majority owing to the first-past-the-post seats.

The centre-right coalition includes former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi’s old party (Forza Italia). Although Berlusconi is banned from contesting elections, he could be the power behind the throne if his coalition wins a majority in both chambers.

The Conversation

Read more:
Will elections in 2018 see 2017’s left-wing revival continue?

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

‘No pokies’ Xenophon goes for ‘some pokies’, but does his gambling policy go far enough?

File 20180219 116327 1xls5ni.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
The evidence behind Nick Xenophon’s proposed gambling reforms in South Australia is reasonably strong.
AAP/Morgan Sette

Charles Livingstone, Monash University

SA-Best, led by high-profile former senator Nick Xenophon, has announced its gambling policy ahead of next month’s South Australian election. Xenophon has backed away from the “no pokies” policy that characterised his earlier approach to gambling reform. However, the evidence behind his party’s proposed suite of measures is reasonably strong.

What’s in the policy?

Key aspects of SA-Best’s proposal are:

  • a five-year plan to cut poker machines numbers in South Australia from 12,100 to 8,100;

  • a reduction in maximum bets to A$1, from the current $5;

  • a reduction in maximum prizes from $10,000 to $500;

  • removing particularly addictive features such as “losses disguised as wins”;

  • prohibition of political donations from gambling businesses; and

  • the removal of EFTPOS facilities from gambling venues.

The policy would also empower the state’s Independent Gambling Authority to implement and evaluate these proposals.

The policy is targeted at commercial hotel operators; clubs, “community hotels” and the casino are exempt from the reduction provisions.

There are also proposals to cut trading hours from 18 to 16 per day, with the introduction of a seven-year pokie licence for venues, from January 1, 2019. Increased resources would go to counselling and support for those with gambling problems.

Notably absent from the policy is the introduction of a pre-commitment system, which would enable pokie users to decide in advance how much they want to spend. Along with $1 maximum bets, this was a key recommendation of a Productivity Commission inquiry in 2010.

The policy has attracted the expected response from the gambling industry. The Australian Hotels Association argued the changes would “rip the guts” out of the gambling industry and attack the “26,000 jobs” it claims the industry directly creates.

Does evidence support SA Best’s policies?

We’ve known for some time that reducing maximum bets is likely to reduce the amount wagered by people experiencing severe gambling problems. This in turn reduces the harm they suffer.

Read more:
A $1 maximum bet on pokies would reduce gambling harm

Reducing maximum prizes reduces “volatility”, meaning pokies may have more consistent loss rates.

Reducing access to pokies is also an important intervention, since easy access is a key risk factor for developing a gambling problem. Reducing the number of machines, and the hours they are accessible, support this.

Read more:
Too close to home: people who live near pokie venues at risk

However, very substantial cuts in pokie numbers are needed to meaningfully reduce harm. A cut of the magnitude SA-Best proposes may not be sufficient to prevent those with serious gambling habits from readily accessing pokies. This is because pokies are rarely fully utilised at all times of the week.

Removing easy access to cash has also been identified as an important harm-reduction intervention. This had a positive initial effect in Victoria (especially among high-risk gamblers), when ATMs were removed from pokie venues in 2012.

The harms associated with gambling generally affect far more people than just the gambler. The most recent study, from 2012 indicates that 0.6% of the SA adult population is classified as at high risk of gambling harm, 2.5% are classified as at moderate risk, and another 7.1% at low risk.

Based on census data, this equates to about 8,000 South Australians experiencing severe harm from gambling. Another 33,100 are experiencing significant harm, and about 94,000 are experiencing some harm.

However, each high-risk gambler affects six others; each moderate-risk gambler affects three others; and each low-risk gambler one other. So, the problems of each high-risk gambler affect another 47,660 South Australians. These are children, spouses, other relatives, friends, employers, the general community via the costs of crime, and so on.

Another 99,300 are affected by moderate-risk gambling, and another 94,000 by low-risk gambling. All up, this amounts to 241,000 people.

Of these, 190,000 are affected at high or significant levels. These harms include financial disaster and bankruptcy, divorce or separation, neglect of children, intimate partner violence and other violent crime, crimes against property, mental and physical ill-health, and in some cases, suicide.

Most gambling problems (around 75%) are related to pokies, and by far the greatest expenditure goes through them. Nothing has changed in this regard since the Productivity Commission identified this in 2010.

In this context, SA-Best’s policy has substantial justification.

Read more:
Removing pokies from Tasmania’s clubs and pubs would help gamblers without hurting the economy

Does it go far enough?

The South Australian Greens, like their counterparts in Tasmania and the Tasmanian Labor Party, want to get all pokies out of pubs and clubs. They argue gambling’s social and economic costs are far in excess of the benefits.

For Tasmania, the costs of gambling can be estimated at about $342 million per year. This is more than three times as much as the total tax take from all gambling in the state.

A similar calculation for South Australia suggests its overall costs of problem gambling are more than $1.6 billion per year. This is more than four times the total taxes from gambling the South Australian government derived in 2015-16 ($380.3 million).

With a cost-benefit ratio like that, some strong measures could well be called for. Xenophon says the proposals encapsulated in his party’s policy are the start. However, Tasmanian Labor has set the new benchmark for pokie regulation – removing them entirely from pubs and clubs.

It is remarkable that a party traditionally in lockstep with – and substantially supported by – the gambling industry has adopted such a position. Perhaps the harms have become too much to ignore?

The ConversationHow these policies might be implemented, amid the resistance they will face from a well-heeled and often-influential gambling industry, presents an intriguing prospect over coming months.

Charles Livingstone, Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The first charges over Russian involvement in the US election have been laid – are there more to come?

File 20180218 75967 3kxqpi.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Special Counsel Robert Mueller (centre) has laid the first charges from his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.
Reuters/Aaron Bernstein

Sandeep Gopalan, Deakin University

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has issued an indictment outlining charges against the Internet Research Agency LLC (and two related entities which had “various Russian government contracts”) and 13 Russian individuals. The defendants are charged with:

knowingly and intentionally conspiring with each other (and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the US political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016.

The defendants, posing as activists, allegedly created “false personas” and fake accounts to operate social media accounts and pages on divisive social issues. The indictment does not specifically state that the individual defendants were connected to the Russian government, although at least one of them is known to be close to Putin. Specific to the 2016 election, the defendants’ goal was “supporting” the campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, and “disparaging” Hillary Clinton.

Their activities were not merely online. They gathered intelligence, staged rallies posing as Americans (in New York, Pennsylvania, Florida) and “communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign.”

Some of their efforts were effective. For instance, the fake Twitter account “Tennessee GOP”, which falsely claimed to be operated by the Republican Party in that state, attracted 100,000 followers.

Read more:
Explainer: what is a special counsel and what will he investigate in the Trump administration?

The indictment lists political advertisements taken out by the defendants. These included such messages as “Donald wants to defeat terrorism … Hillary wants to sponsor it”, “Ohio Wants Hillary 4 Prison”, and “Hillary is a Satan, and her crimes and lies had proved just how evil she is.”

Their tactics were insidious. They targeted vulnerable groups such as African-Americans and Muslims to sow hate and reduce Clinton’s turnout.

The indictment provides rich detail about the Russian agency: it was incorporated in 2013, based in St Petersburg, employed hundreds of people for its online work, and had a budget of millions. It described its work as “information warfare” against the US and wanted to “spread distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general” during the 2016 election. Again, no direct link to the Russian government or Putin is mentioned in relation to these actions.

It is alleged the company and the named individuals conspired to violate the Foreign Agent Registration Act, which stipulates certain informational requirements for agents of foreign principals who attempt to influence US public opinion, policy and legislation. They also violated the Federal Election Campaign Act, which prohibits foreigners from making contributions etc relating to electioneering communications. The indictment also alleges identity theft, bank and wire fraud, and violations of visa laws.

Crucially, the indictment does not state that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. It clearly notes that any contact with the campaign was “unwitting”.

Deputy Attorney-General Rod Rosenstein also clarified there was no allegation of collusion in the indictment and he stated that the Russians did not affect the outcome of the 2016 election. Following the indictment, President Trump has tweeted that his campaign “did nothing wrong – no collusion!”


The president has also tweeted:


This marks an important step for Trump. He is now apparently dismissing Russian influence after repeatedly refusing to condemn them, seeking to downplay their involvement in the election, and labelling it a hoax.

He has since pointed out that the indictment shows Russian involvement began in 2014 – before he entered the campaign. Moreover, the evidence shows that the Russians did not support only Trump. They also supported Bernie Sanders (who has blamed the Obama Administration for not doing more to tackle it), although this fact has not been adequately covered in the media. Further, the goal of the Russians was to sow distrust in the political system and undermine the electoral process – not specifically to help Trump.

Read more:
US approach to security is deeply troubling – and it’s not just about Trump

Does the indictment mean that the president and members of his campaign are in the clear? The answer is difficult to determine at this stage. The indictment leaves open the question as to whether other US individuals might have aided the defendants.

Subsequent actions by Mueller might bring forward additional charges against Trump or his team. Further, the indictment does nothing in relation to the potential obstruction-of-justice case against Trump, although the evidence on this is likely to be weak.

The ConversationFinally, from a purely political standpoint, it is hard to see from the evidence outlined that the Russian involvement was decisive. To be sure, they propped up fringe groups and spread discord, which local groups were fully capable of doing and did throughout the election. In addition, the sums of money documented in the indictment are small change in the context of the gargantuan amounts both campaigns spent during the 2016 campaign.

Sandeep Gopalan, Professor of Law, Deakin University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

With Feeney gone, Greens sniff a chance in Batman, and has Xenophon’s bubble burst in South Australia?

File 20180203 19937 unnmwm.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Ged Kearney has been announced as Labor’s star candidate for the inner-Melbourne seat of Batman.
AAP/David Crosling

Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

On February 1, Labor’s David Feeney resigned as the member for Batman, as he could not find proof that he had renounced his British citizenship. This will trigger a byelection in Batman, which Labor could lose to the Greens. In November 2017, Labor lost the Victorian state seat of Northcote to the Greens at a byelection.

Read more:
Contradictory polls in Queensland, while the Greens storm Northcote in Victoria

Victoria has 37 federal seats, and 88 lower house state seats, so federal seats have more than twice as many enrolled voters as state seats. Batman encompasses Northcote, but also includes northern suburbs away from the inner city, where Labor does relatively well and the Greens poorly.

The Poll Bludger’s booth map below shows the clear divide between north Batman (all red booths representing Labor two-party wins against the Greens in 2016) and south Batman (all but one booth Green). The state seat of Northcote is south Batman. Larger numbers on the map are booths where more people voted.


During the 2016 election campaign, Feeney embarrassed Labor when it was revealed he had not declared a A$2.3 million house. Feeney narrowly held Batman by 51-49 against the Greens at the election, a 9.6-point swing to the Greens. Labor will hope the large swing reflected anti-Feeney sentiment, and that a fresh Labor candidate – former ACTU president Ged Kearney – can hold Batman.

At the 2016 election, the Liberals directed preferences to Feeney, enabling him to win after trailing the Greens on primary votes. The Liberals are very unlikely to field a candidate at the byelection, and this will help the Greens.

Kearney is already well-known and will have a personal vote. She is from Labor’s left faction, and will be a better fit with the electorate than the right-aligned Feeney. Alex Bhathal will be the Greens’ candidate; she also stood at the 2016 election.

Other Section 44 cases

In late 2017, Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie resigned owing to a dual citizenship. However, Lambie’s number-two candidate, Steve Martin, could also be disqualified, as he was the Devonport mayor at the 2016 election. The High Court has not yet ruled on whether a local government position violates Section 44(iv) of the Constitution, pertaining to public service employees.

If Martin is disqualified, her number three, Rob Waterman, also has problems. If none of Lambie’s ticket are eligible, One Nation’s Kate McCullogh would win the final Tasmanian Senate seat.

SA-BEST’s number four, Tim Storer, attempted to replace Nick Xenophon in the Senate, against his party’s wishes, when Xenophon resigned to contest the South Australian election. As a result, Storer was kicked out of the party.

However, SA-BEST senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore resigned in November as she had a dual citizenship. SA-BEST is arguing that Storer should not be allowed to replace Kakoschke-Moore as he is no longer in SA-BEST; it wants Kakoschke-Moore to replace herself.

Labor’s ACT senator, Katy Gallagher, renounced her British citizenship before nominations closed for the 2016 election, but she did not receive confirmation of renunciation until after nominations closed. If the High Court rules against Gallagher, at least three Labor lower house members, whose circumstances are similar to Gallagher, will probably have to resign.

Another issue is assignment to short and long Senate terms. At the beginning of this parliamentary term, following the double-dissolution election, senators were assigned to either short terms (expiring June 2019) or long terms (expiring June 2022). If a long-term senator is replaced by someone on the ticket who should only get a short term, it creates a fairness problem.

In late December, Liberal Jim Molan was declared elected to the Senate by the High Court to replace National Fiona Nash, who had a long term. Molan accepted a short term, and the number four on the joint New South Wales Coalition ticket, Liberal Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, will be promoted from a short term to a long term.

Molan won his seat from number seven on the Coalition ticket, after Nash’s original replacement, the moderate Liberal Hollie Hughes, was disqualified for taking up public service work following her failure in the 2016 election.

Bob Day’s replacement in Senate, Lucy Gichuhi, becomes a Liberal

In early 2017, before the citizenship crisis started, Family First senator Bob Day was declared ineligible to be elected by the High Court, and replaced by Family First’s South Australian number two, Lucy Gichuhi.

When Family First became part of Cory Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives, Gichuhi did not join the new party, instead sitting as an independent. Yesterday, Gichuhi joined the Liberals.

This outcome gives the Coalition 30 of 76 Senate seats, making up for the loss of Bernardi. It is unlikely to have an impact on Senate votes, as Gichuhi voted with the Liberals a large proportion of the time.

While Gichuhi has a short Senate term, Bernardi has a long term, so he cannot be replaced until July 2022 barring a double dissolution.

ReachTEL South Australian poll: just 17.6% for Xenophon’s SA-BEST

The South Australian election will be held in six weeks, on March 17. A ReachTEL poll for the Climate Council, conducted on January 29 from a sample of 1,054, gave the Liberals 33.4% of the primary vote, Labor 26.1%, Nick Xenophon’s SA-BEST 17.6%, the Greens 5.5%, Others 9.1% and 8.3% were undecided.

If undecided were excluded, primary votes would be 36.4% Liberal, 28.5% Labor, 19.2% SA-BEST, 6.0% Greens and 9.9% others.

There has been no statewide South Australian ReachTEL poll since the 2014 state election. An October to December Newspoll gave SA-BEST 32%, ahead of both major parties. Galaxy polling conducted about three weeks ago gave SA-BEST primary vote leads in three seats it is contesting.

Read more:
Nick Xenophon could be South Australia’s next premier, while Turnbull loses his 25th successive Newspoll

If this ReachTEL poll is correct, there has been a dramatic fall in SA-BEST support in the fortnight from when the Galaxy polls were conducted to the ReachTEL. The major South Australian parties started to vigorously campaign against SA-BEST after the Galaxy polls had been conducted.

The ConversationI would like to see some more polls before concluding that Xenophon’s bubble has burst, but this ReachTEL is not at all good for him.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.